2018-2022 Media Deal $ Value

[Stormwarrior82]

I'm also sure he wouldn't have made the announcement without the Board's approval.That being stated, it doesn't alter the fact(of course no News would be there )for a ch9 announcement.But I repeat no 9 Execs no NRL execs/board members.
The way I look at it, did he commit to the deal which was a variant to the original planned one ,leaving the Board tied to that, and their absence suggesting it's all Dave's
Ever since the NRL has made TV deal presentations since post SL,other than this one occasion,all tannouncements have included other NRL and TV execs .Thus you may consider it not a big deal, but to me and no doubt others it smacks of being very.
If at least Beattie or someone from 9 was also there , I get it.It didn't happen.

AFL Commission chairman Mike Fitzpatrick and CEO Gillon McLachlan were on hand to announce the deal, and they were joined by News Corp executive chairman Rupert Murdoch, News Corp CEO Robert Thomson, Seven West Media chairman Kerry Stokes and Telstra CEO Andy Penn.

Didnt see any other afl board members at the table besides Fitzpatrick and ceo Mclachlan.

And David gyngell was with smith at the announcement.

At the end of the day arguing over who was at the press conference is really irrelevant. What matters is that we get the right deal and I think we initially did but after backtracking we ended up losing out.

It will be interesting to see how the afl deal with Foxtel this time around.

 

[Perth Red]

I know the first year of the new deal was over $40m.That was well publicised.
I'm responding to a comment ,think it was Beattie or Buz ,who stated there was near on $100m in the bank.IOW taking into account the 2nd year of the Tv deals.
If the 2nd year is about the same, then the $200m they wanted at the end of the 5 years 18-22 looks to be well attainable.And I'll be jumping for joy.

The traditional pattern seems to be surpluses in the first two years followed by losses in the next 3. Last tv deal was

Yr1 +45.3mill
Yr2 +21.8mill
Yr3 -8.1mill
Yr4 -2.4mill
Yr5 -3.7mill

Not sure his comment would have anything to do with second year finances given we are only 8 months in.

 

[Perth Red]

The NRL or Dave's
recommendation to the Board?
The only obvious thing I noted, and watched the TV presentation live with Smith on his lonesome, is why the other either board members or ch9 execs weren't in attendance?
No one yet has explained why he did the presentation on his own.Was it look at me I did this? Or was it a case of the Board saying it's your baby, their absence hardly supportive .
Regardless of whether Fox was stalling or not, we made the move to grab 9 first and leave News out of the equation.Ruperts response and the fact that the AFL got an extra $500m over that period is evidence enough News were p*ssed off.And ch7/AFL and News execs there.

It was clear News was negotiating with the AFL ATT,hardly a scoop.
When there's cheese lying around ,you can smell a rat.

I do know the NRL Board wants to try and get in early on negotiations ,starting next year.Even ch9 according to the media's talking about dropping Thursday nights.Hoobloodyray.

Afl got significantly more last time as well. End of day they have more content, bigger presence nationally and capital cities covered so not really surprising they got more again.

 

[Perth Red]

AFL Commission chairman Mike Fitzpatrick and CEO Gillon McLachlan were on hand to announce the deal, and they were joined by News Corp executive chairman Rupert Murdoch, News Corp CEO Robert Thomson, Seven West Media chairman Kerry Stokes and Telstra CEO Andy Penn.

Didnt see any other afl board members at the table besides Fitzpatrick and ceo Mclachlan.

And David gyngell was with smith at the announcement.

At the end of the day arguing over who was at the press conference is really irrelevant. What matters is that we get the right deal and I think we initially did but after backtracking we ended up losing out.

It will be interesting to see how the afl deal with Foxtel this time around.

It’s a shame we didn’t drop the Thursday night and add the fta Saturday night, that would have been a good outcome. The Ch9 was an excellent uplift in value, once again it was fox who shafted us and once again the game bent over and took it. We sold simulcast every game too cheap imo and missed the chance to get them paying for expansion sadly.

 

[taipan]

AFL Commission chairman Mike Fitzpatrick and CEO Gillon McLachlan were on hand to announce the deal, and they were joined by News Corp executive chairman Rupert Murdoch, News Corp CEO Robert Thomson, Seven West Media chairman Kerry Stokes and Telstra CEO Andy Penn.

Didnt see any other afl board members at the table besides Fitzpatrick and ceo Mclachlan.

And David gyngell was with smith at the announcement.

At the end of the day arguing over who was at the press conference is really irrelevant. What matters is that we get the right deal and I think we initially did but after backtracking we ended up losing out.

It will be interesting to see how the afl deal with Foxtel this time around.

Only response need Gil was not on his lonesome.

 

[taipan]

Afl got significantly more last time as well. End of day they have more content, bigger presence nationally and capital cities covered so not really surprising they got more again.

Yep they did, and if Smith had used his gonads ,we should have matched them during his negotiations.We got rumbled once again ,although not as bad as Gallop's efforts.

 

[taipan]

The traditional pattern seems to be surpluses in the first two years followed by losses in the next 3. Last tv deal was

Yr1 +45.3mill
Yr2 +21.8mill
Yr3 -8.1mill
Yr4 -2.4mill
Yr5 -3.7mill

Not sure his comment would have anything to do with second year finances given we are only 8 months in.

Perhaps he is projecting ahead for Y2, based on the first half.But they need to maintain that profit level to ensure expansion is able to be funded properly.
.If they go into negotiations say mid next year, they will have Y1 & 2 results in the bank supposedly $80m plus, plus a decent knowledge of FH Y3 profits, from which they can negotiate with some sort of monetary cushion for the 2023 TV deals.
Bearing in mind ,it's pretty hard to see a big jump in TV contract monies, as advertising monies have dropped, our Tv ratings are not what we wanted ATT.At least having SOO as a man backstop is helpful that could be sold separately.

 

[Perth Red]

Yep they did, and if Smith had used his gonads ,we should have matched them during his negotiations.We got rumbled once again ,although not as bad as Gallop's efforts.

When I said last time I meant 2013. In fact afl have always got a bigger deal from Fox than nrl, regardless of ceo or negotiating tactic

 

[taipan]

When I said last time I meant 2013. In fact afl have always got a bigger deal from Fox than nrl, regardless of ceo or negotiating tactic

You've read my comments about current and prior CEOs. hardly flattering The fact News owned half the code til only a few years back, and Gallop being the yes man as a former exec, this was the starting point for a low base on which future negotiations were struck.
From memory Gallop bragged about the first deal $500m over 6 years as being the biggest in Oz sport.Not long after the AFL secured a 5 year $780m deal.The silence from him was deafening.

And one wonders why our later deals were behind the AFLs.You see if we get 18 teams with Perth and Brisbane and we still get a lower TV deal, something in the state of Denmark stinks.,IOW Fox then cannot argue they are getting more slots for AFL than the NRL.

 

[Perth Red]

You've read my comments about current and prior CEOs. hardly flattering The fact News owned half the code til only a few years back, and Gallop being the yes man as a former exec, this was the starting point for a low base on which future negotiations were struck.
From memory Gallop bragged about the first deal $500m over 6 years as being the biggest in Oz sport.Not long after the AFL secured a 5 year $780m deal.The silence from him was deafening.

And one wonders why our later deals were behind the AFLs.You see if we get 18 teams with Perth and Brisbane and we still get a lower TV deal, something in the state of Denmark stinks.,IOW Fox then cannot argue they are getting more slots for AFL than the NRL.

In theory content amount, ad breaks in game etc shouldnt matter to Fox, it is purely subscription income so you'd think the sport that is the largest subscription driver would be making the most money. It would be very interesting to see if Fox ever does research on why people subscribe. I've had it twenty years and they've never asked me? With slightly larger audience for NRL than AFL on Fox it would a reasonable assumption to think more people were subscribers for NRL?

Given extra content time and ad breaks which do matter to FTA I think this FTA deal was pretty good in comparison to AFL's.

I'm sure a lot of our PayTV deal shafting is due to historic relationship, News feeling hard done to by the SL war etc. Its a real shame there is still no viable competitor to sell to.

 

[Perth Red]

In terms of what the real $ value of the 18-22 TV deal is working out to it is:

Yr1 $318mill
Yr2 $324.6mill
Yr3 $331.1mill
Yr4 $337.7mill
Yr5 $344.4mill

Total Cash value $1,656,000. Give or take a few $'s.
It was announced it was expected to be around $1.9billion so I guess that included contra.

 

[Generalzod]

Like Fafita try in that famous Grand Final..without the tacklers

 

[taipan]

In theory content amount, ad breaks in game etc shouldnt matter to Fox, it is purely subscription income so you'd think the sport that is the largest subscription driver would be making the most money. It would be very interesting to see if Fox ever does research on why people subscribe. I've had it twenty years and they've never asked me? With slightly larger audience for NRL than AFL on Fox it would a reasonable assumption to think more people were subscribers for NRL?

Given extra content time and ad breaks which do matter to FTA I think this FTA deal was pretty good in comparison to AFL's.

I'm sure a lot of our PayTV deal shafting is due to historic relationship, News feeling hard done to by the SL war etc. Its a real shame there is still no viable competitor to sell to.

My argument all along ,has been.We got a dud deal ATT with the $500m over 6 years and the AFL $780m over 5 years.
That set the ball park level, and we seemingly get our TV deals revolving around the NRL/AFL comparisons.I have no doubt, not having a national comp, played some part.

 

[applesauce]

I’m not sure if people on this forum wilfully or ignorantly ignore the connection between crowds, disposable income and TV rights.

Even if the AFL have 15% less Fox subscribers what if they have 30% more disposable income than the equivalent NRL subscriber?

Not only that, NRL ratings are underpinned by regions, not capitals. Cities have more professionals, consumerism and discretionary income than regional areas.

What if they have 5-10% more female engagement that NRL fans (often the family members who decide the budget)? Then Fox’s advertising is more valuable across a range of channels not just FoxSports.

The differences don’t have to be much in these areas between the two sports to explain the TV deals.

 

[taipan]

In terms of what the real $ value of the 18-22 TV deal is working out to it is:

Yr1 $318mill
Yr2 $324.6mill
Yr3 $331.1mill
Yr4 $337.7mill
Yr5 $344.4mill

Total Cash value $1,656,000. Give or take a few $'s.
It was announced it was expected to be around $1.9billion so I guess that included contra.

The question is does that include Sky NZ? Would only be about $100m over 5 years anyway,I heard.

 

[Perth Red]

The question is does that include Sky NZ? Would only be about $100m over 5 years anyway,I heard.

Yes that is all media sales generated revenue inc tv, radio and overseas contracts. Doesn’t include digital which is sitting in the football line item

 

[Perth Red]

I’m not sure if people on this forum wilfully or ignorantly ignore the connection between crowds, disposable income and TV rights.

Even if the AFL have 15% less Fox subscribers what if they have 30% more disposable income than the equivalent NRL subscriber?

Not only that, NRL ratings are underpinned by regions, not capitals. Cities have more professionals, consumerism and discretionary income than regional areas.

What if they have 5-10% more female engagement that NRL fans (often the family members who decide the budget)? Then Fox’s advertising is more valuable across a range of channels not just FoxSports.

The differences don’t have to be much in these areas between the two sports to explain the TV deals.

Given the fox advertising is only at halftime and pre and post game, and seem to be the same adverts across all sports channels not sure that it makes a lot of revenue difference for them?

 

[T-Boon]

I’m not sure if people on this forum wilfully or ignorantly ignore the connection between crowds, disposable income and TV rights.

Even if the AFL have 15% less Fox subscribers what if they have 30% more disposable income than the equivalent NRL subscriber?

Not only that, NRL ratings are underpinned by regions, not capitals. Cities have more professionals, consumerism and discretionary income than regional areas.

What if they have 5-10% more female engagement that NRL fans (often the family members who decide the budget)? Then Fox’s advertising is more valuable across a range of channels not just FoxSports.

The differences don’t have to be much in these areas between the two sports to explain the TV deals.

Solid argument for a new SYDNEY team without the old working class baggage, a new Brisbane team and relocating some of the old Sydney suburban teams.

 

[Stallion]

Solid argument for a new SYDNEY team without the old working class baggage, a new Brisbane team and relocating some of the old Sydney suburban teams.

? Solid argument for a Central Coast Bears team and another Brisbane team. Don't think any more blood letting the code's top flight clubs in Sydney has any merit. Sydney and surrounds are massive and will only get more densely populated and bigger. Losing established clubs is not wise or good business.

 

[taipan]

Given the fox advertising is only at halftime and pre and post game, and seem to be the same adverts across all sports channels not sure that it makes a lot of revenue difference for them?

The only way you can improve on that for Fox is additional teams (18),then the NRL comes armed with a persuasive argument.